Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code section 267 in M.Shashidhara @ Shashi vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2022Matching Fragments
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioners herein were arrested by the Police of New Extension Town Police Station, Tumakuru on 06.12.2021 in respect of Crime No.87/2021. They were sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, Jayanagar Police, Tumkuru, registered a case in Crime No.20/2021 against the petitioners. Since the custodial investigation of the petitioners was necessary in Crime No. 20/2021, Jayanagar Police filed an application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No. 20/2021 seeking custody of the petitioners as is contemplated under Section 267 Cr.P.C., on 08.12.2021. The said application was allowed on 27.12.2021 and thereafter, the custody of the petitioners was granted to Jananagar Police Station for the period from 29.12.2021 to 30.12.2021. Admittedly, the said order came to be passed by exercising the powers vested with the learned Trial Magistrate under Section 267 Cr.P.C. The order of handing over the custody of the petitioners to Jayanagar Police in respect of investigation in Crime No. 20/2021 from custody in Crime No. 87/2021 was as per Form No.36 of Cr.P.C. On completion of the custodial investigation, the petitioners were sent back to the judicial custody in Crime No.87/2021.
16. Therefore, what emerges from the above discussion is that an order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. by the Court seeking the presence of the accused, who had already been in judicial custody in another case, would result in dispel the custody of that accused in earlier case for a temporary period for the purpose of meeting the contingencies enumerated in Section 267 Cr.P.C. In other words, order issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C., does not authorize the custody of that particular accused in subsequent case/s.
"6. If a person is detained legally in connection with any crime by the order passed by "A" Court, such person if required in another crime in "B" Court, the provisions of Section 267 of Cr.PC shall be employed. Section 269 of Cr.PC is an adjunct to Section 267 of Cr.PC and the two provisions have to be read harmoniously. The main purpose of Section 267 of Cr.PC is to check delays when criminal proceedings are pending in different Courts.
27. As could be seen from the contents of Forms supra, when once the purpose is served for a particular day/days, the order passed under Section 267 Cr.P.C., seized to exist and the accused, who has been produced before the Court or before the Investigating Agency as the case may be will have to return the accused to the judicial custody, wherein he is originally remanded by the orders of the court in the original case. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the learned Magistrate and the district judges as the case may be will not have the power to order for "body warrant extended/judicial custody extended" in case where an accused is produced before that court under the orders passed under Section 267 Cr.P.C., and such practice needs to be discontinued henceforth.